Jump to content

steelshark

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About steelshark

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vienna, Austria, Europe

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. What I would like to see is, with the lash enchantments the lowest of all apllziing DR types is chosen. eg.: Sword with Burning lash goes against the lowest of pierce/slash/fire. However I suspect that the lash damage has to against its corresponding DR alone, which would be very disappointing.
  2. In my opinion it also shows inconsistencies. For example: Pallegina has "Soldier" as a Background, which is fine. And she has a Greatsword, which is also...ok (would prefer Shield + elegant Weapon). But then she has a Pistol. Which is not only not in her weapon Group, but it is in the Ruffian Group. Eder also clearly states that he was in an Army, which suggests "Soldier", but he also starts with a Ruffian Weapon (Sabre). Is there any way we can change the groupings around? Anyone knows how to mod the files? I don't care about Achievements btw, so "cheating" is ok, as long as it makes
  3. Hi, Since the game was released I was trying to figure out which weapon to give to which character, and also doing so in keeping with the feel and backstory/concept of each character. But more and more I find myself stumbling over the sometimes odd weapon grouping. Examples: Ruffian has 2 Firearms, including the Pistol, which, to me, seems a rather "gentleman"-weapon, which should belong to say Noble. Noble has 2 Magic Implements. Wasn't there any way to split them up between 3 groups? Then you have Greatsword AND Pike in Soldier. Pike seems ok, but Greatsword sounds knightly to
  4. Very Interesting. It feels like it's coming together. On the point of "Might": Like others have mentioned already it seems a bit odd that it governs physical and mental "Strength". I'd rather have more attributes, that have very clear purposes than less which may be compounds of attributes. ie.: You could have 1 "Body" attribute to describe how tough, strong, fast etc. you are. But I'd rather have separated attributes. I'm not saying that there should be 20, but instead of the traditional 6 why not go for 10? It could even work like GURPS where some attributes depend on others > Per
  5. Hi everyone, I guess I'll just chip in my 2 cents: There are a few things that came to my mind when reading over the posts. Now, as probably everyone, I'd wish for a good variety of enemies. But I'd restict that to the kind of variety that actually makes sense. To me it seems some settings are way to crowded with overly powerful monsters, for civilization to actually be able to survive. Also, intelligent, humanoid monsters automatically make more interesting enemies (IMHO), since they can have wildely differing equipment and agendas, whereas wolves, zombies or even very exotic, yet un
  6. I'm all for "no minigame", since it would allow the player to use his skill, instead of using the characters skill. IMHO, all actions should be based upon a chacters skill, not the players. That is, all actions apart from tactics, strategy, choosing equipment and so on. The reason I don't like minigames is the same reason I don't like quick-time events. Either a character knows what he's doing, and doesn't need the players guiding hand, or he doesn't, and shouldn't be able to use the outgame player as a crutch. You wouldn't allow players to enter their own, witty, dialogue-lines to circumve
  7. One logical flaw I see with skyrims armor system: It's armor value was translated to a percentage that reduced all incoming damage. That sounds fine. But how exactly does a person increase the performance of Armor in such a drastic way that Skyrim showed? (Probably Magic ) What I would like to see in an Armor system is that armors have pro's and con's, limitations, and relatively fixed performance value based on design and material. Steel Plate is Steel Plate, no matter how familiar you are with it. I can see small bonuses to the absorbtion/damage reduction, and to the maximum dexterit
  8. Is it perhaps too much to ask for 2+ inventory-modes? advanced > inventory tetris+backpacks normal > bg-style
  9. I think "crafting" should be more in the line of "letting some proffesional do it for you". BG1/2 had good options. But I was missing a sort of "ordering" system. Say I want 100 Arrows+1... why can't i ask for these to be made for me?
  10. What is wrong with just playing the game again, from the start, without game+. I've done it in many rpg's, and most didn't offer game+. Game+ seems to be a console-"receive gameerpoints"-achievement-thing, which i absolutely do not like. I don't need a pat on the back in the from of an achiement. Not for using a spell 50 times, not for solving a quest, and not for playing through the game. At best, it is just like playing with the same character, just with nicer gear and abilities. At worst it has a huge impact on balancing. ^^game+ = bad option IMHO edit: The Mass Effect serie
  11. I am strongly FOR Objective-based XP. Reason: Quests and/or Objectives can be built in a way that multiple paths lead to solving them, which likely leads to players using the XP to buy skills/abilities they want, not those that are "needed" (mostly combat). Combat is fine. I like combat. But alternatives to combat can greatly enhance the gameplay. Please just don't force players down a single path. Deus Ex Human revolution was a bad example in 2 ways: 1.) Boss Fights. I was just massively disappointed about this. Whole game being stealthy... and then forced open fights = no-go. 2.) XP fo
  12. Ugh... please no magical "just carry everything you find"-inventory ala mass effect. It's ridiculous. Killing bandits, looting their Leather Armors, and swords should not be your primary money-source. It should either be high-value/low-weight items (jewelery, magic-stuff), or straight out monetary rewards for quests. With backpacks, you could also have "money-pouches" which act as backpacks for very small items > rings, amulets, gems, etc. And of course bags of holding of various sizes/shapes become instantly possible. example: bag of holding the size of a very small pouch. Yes it
  13. Just playing BG:T, and what really bothers me is that the party does not move as a cohesive unit, but rather as 6 individuals, that also sometimes block each other. They should try to keep formation even while moving (no jumpstarts from 1-2 characters). Perhaps in addition to formations characters could get tags such as "front, center and rear" for the game to know which characters should go first through doors/ tight halls. ie.: 6 people, 3 tanks I want 1 tank as a rear-guard. So i tag 2 tanks front, 3 normal as center, and 1 tank as rear.
  14. My 2 cents: Focus on solid looking Models, solid believable animations, perhaps with some footwork in combat too, as some animations in crpg feel very static. High-poly models can most likely be patched/modded in, so should not be a priority. Finishing moves are nice, IF they are short, otherwise they become repetitive.
  15. To throw in my 2 cents on armor: I'm not a fan of having "armor" decrease the chance of your enemy hitting you. It always felt more natural to have the following defense-system: 1.) to hit vs. evade (dodge/parry/block) 2.) damage vs. armor Where one must decide, which part of defense he prefers, or is more suited to the character. The more you focus on one are of these 4 (hit, evade, damage, armor), the more the other 3 decrease. Since the player does not have to keep track/keep rolling, a hit-zone model would perhaps also increase variation. Wearing ONLY a heavy plate on the tor
×
×
  • Create New...